article thumbnail

Dismissal of Defamation and False Light Claim under Tennessee Public Participation Act partially reversed.

Day on Torts

Where plaintiff real estate professional brought an action for defamation and false light based on an online review written by defendant, defendant moved to dismiss the action pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA). In Charles v. McQueen , No. M2021-00878-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 4490980 (Tenn. The TPPA, Tenn. Code Ann. §

article thumbnail

Proper analysis for petition to dismiss under Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA).

Day on Torts

When a litigant has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA), that motion should be analyzed under the provisions of the TPPA rather than under the traditional Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12 analysis. In Reiss v. Rock Creek Construction, Inc. , quoting Tenn. Code Ann. §

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Court of Appeals releases first opinion addressing Tennessee Public Participation Act.

Day on Torts

When defendant filed a petition to dismiss a defamation case under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA), and plaintiff failed to respond by “establish[ing] a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in the legal action,” dismissal was affirmed.

article thumbnail

Legal Malpractice Claim Filed More than One Year after BPR Complaint was Untimely.

Day on Torts

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the BPR decisions on the matter “were res judicata and Plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice.” Note: Chapter 64, Section 5 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision.

article thumbnail

Dismissal Based on Lack of Foreseeability Reversed.

Day on Torts

In Tennessee, “the employee of an independent contractor enjoys the status of an invitee while performing work on the premises of the owner-contractee.” Focus Designs filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted, finding that plaintiffs had not shown that the injury was foreseeable. On appeal, the dismissal was reversed.